Association between pregnancy planning or intention and early child development: A systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sustainable Development Goals have a specific target to "ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development" by 2030. There is sparse literature regarding the impact of pregnancy intention (wantedness and timing) or planning on child development. We aimed to summarize the evidence measuring the association between unintended or unplanned pregnancy and child development for children aged 3 to 5. We included studies that compared developmental outcomes of children from unwanted, unplanned, or mistimed pregnancies to those of children from wanted or planned pregnancies. In April 2022, we searched Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and SCOPUS (from inception) without language restrictions. One reviewer tabulated data on country and year of study, population, sample and sampling method, age of participants, exposure, date of exposure retrieval, developmental outcome(s), assessment (direct or through third parties), statistical methods (including covariate selection methods), and effect estimates into bespoken data tables. Our scoping review identified 12 published studies reporting on 8 "cohorts" (range: 1963-2016) with information on approximately 39,000 children born mostly in developed countries. Overall, unwanted/unplanned pregnancies seemed to be associated with poorer child development when compared with wanted/planned pregnancies. Mistimed or delayed pregnancies correlated with weaker effects in the same direction. We concluded that achieving the target for SDG 4, related to child development, might entail policies that create environments supportive of wanted conception and access to safe abortion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".